Dumbest Stat Loved by Talking Heads

[sieglo]

Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by these talking heads who always break out the "and the running game is so important to the [insert team here], that in games that they ran the ball more than 30 times they were 7-1."

This seems so idiotic to me. If you are ahead, you run the ball to kill the clock. At it's worst, this statement confuses cause and effect. At its best, it's totally meaningless.

Stupid idiotic pundits.

What do you think the dumbest oft-cited stat in football?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Dumbest Stat Loved by Talking Heads

The dumbest stat loved by the Talking Head's probably relates to this trivia question.

How many band's are named as a result of Talking Heads songs?

The answer is 2

Two band names have come about from Talking Heads songs - Hüsker Dü and Radiohead. The band we now know as Hüsker Dü were doing a cover of "Psycho Killer" but singer Grant Hart could not speak the verses with French lyrics and instead started saying phrases in foreign languages. Someone in the audience shouted out "Husker Du" because it was the name of a popular 50's board game and the name stuck.

The popular alternative band Radiohead lifted their band name from a Talking Heads song which appears on the album True Stories.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by these talking heads who always break out the "and the running game is so important to the [insert team here], that in games that they ran the ball more than 30 times they were 7-1."

This seems so idiotic to me. If you are ahead, you run the ball to kill the clock. At it's worst, this statement confuses cause and effect. At its best, it's totally meaningless.

Stupid idiotic pundits.

What do you think the dumbest oft-cited stat in football?

To me it 's the flip side of that same coin, the 300 yd passer. If the reason a team runs over 30x per game is because it's ahead, the same logic is that
a team that is far behind must pass alot and so you see a lot of 300 yd games. Yet how many of these are winners? I'd venture to say not even 50%.
If you have to throw often, chances are the opposition will be ready and waiting and your odds of winning aren't great. For reference in 2003 and 2004 when the Pats went 14-2 each year, Brady only threw for 300 yds on 4 occassions total, twice each year.
Just my $0.02,

 

[sieglo]

To me it 's the flip side of that same coin, the 300 yd passer. If the reason a team runs over 30x per game is because it's ahead, the same logic is that
a team that is far behind must pass alot and so you see a lot of 300 yd games. Yet how many of these are winners? I'd venture to say not even 50%.
If you have to throw often, chances are the opposition will be ready and waiting and your odds of winning aren't great. For reference in 2003 and 2004 when the Pats went 14-2 each year, Brady only threw for 300 yds on 4 occassions total, twice each year.
Just my $0.02,

Yeah, I agree with that.... ColdHardFootballFacts ought to analyze this one and figure out where the optimum balanced game is and then let the analysts know so we can stop the insanity.

 

[spacecrime]

Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by these talking heads who always break out the "and the running game is so important to the [insert team here], that in games that they ran the ball more than 30 times they were 7-1."

This seems so idiotic to me. If you are ahead, you run the ball to kill the clock. At it's worst, this statement confuses cause and effect. At its best, it's totally meaningless.

Stupid idiotic pundits.

What do you think the dumbest oft-cited stat in football?

Well, they are right in that there is a correlation between lots of runs and winning the game. The problem is that they have it reversed. The teams don't win because they ran the ball a lot. They ran the ball a lot because they were winning.

It is like saying, Gee, basketball players are tall, and I'm pretty short and want to be taller. I guess I should play more basketball.

 

[pats1]

Well, they are right in that there is a correlation between lots of runs and winning the game. The problem is that they have it reversed. The teams don't win because they ran the ball a lot. They ran the ball a lot because they were winning.

To me, it's more of a chicken/egg question. It can go both ways.

 

[shakadave]

Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by these talking heads who always break out the "and the running game is so important to the [insert team here], that in games that they ran the ball more than 30 times they were 7-1."

This seems so idiotic to me. If you are ahead, you run the ball to kill the clock. At it's worst, this statement confuses cause and effect. At its best, it's totally meaningless.

Stupid idiotic pundits.

What do you think the dumbest oft-cited stat in football?

Right on! This has been bugging me for years but I never voiced it until you just put your finger on it.

If they want to make the stat semi-legit, correlate FIRST HALF running with the final result of the game! Does a run-oriented game plan, or at least running success EARLY, mean that you're going to eventually win the game?

 

[DarrylS]

To me it 's the flip side of that same coin, the 300 yd passer. If the reason a team runs over 30x per game is because it's ahead, the same logic is that
a team that is far behind must pass alot and so you see a lot of 300 yd games. Yet how many of these are winners? I'd venture to say not even 50%.
If you have to throw often, chances are the opposition will be ready and waiting and your odds of winning aren't great. For reference in 2003 and 2004 when the Pats went 14-2 each year, Brady only threw for 300 yds on 4 occassions total, twice each year.
Just my $0.02,

This along with the total number of TD's thrown, flashback to the Colts in '04-'05, didn't Peyton have something like 56 and was heralded as a great qb of all time. Little good did it do them, if you are throwing 4 td's a game and do not win the Division Championship it means little, as your team obviously sucks.

 

[Pats726]

The dumbest stat loved by the Talking Head's probably relates to this trivia question.

How many band's are named as a result of Talking Heads songs?

The answer is 2

Two band names have come about from Talking Heads songs - Hüsker Dü and Radiohead. The band we now know as Hüsker Dü were doing a cover of "Psycho Killer" but singer Grant Hart could not speak the verses with French lyrics and instead started saying phrases in foreign languages. Someone in the audience shouted out "Husker Du" because it was the name of a popular 50's board game and the name stuck.

The popular alternative band Radiohead lifted their band name from a Talking Heads song which appears on the album True Stories.

THAT was very interesting...didn't know about HD....but given the time....makes sense..
They were one of my fave bands...got to see them in a small club as a trio...
even saw Tina's amazing sketchbook...very surreal and interesting. DB was quite good with the acoustic...pre-Eno. Also got to see Harrison's tryouts with the band a bit later at a club. Talk about good timing for him???? Although Dave Robinson's move to Captain Swing..the Cars was also quite interesting.

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

Actually, teams that have a high total of pass attempts are more likely to lose games. One game that immediately comes to mind is SB 39, which Brady had 33 pass attempts while McNabb had 51.

In 2005, the Atlanta Falcons were 4-0 when Warrick Dunn had 20+ carries.

In 2004, the Eagles lost 3 regular season games. Brian Westbrook didn't play in 2 and had his lowest productive game in the other. The Pats knew that when Westbrook is playing well, the Eagles win. IMO, in SB39, the Pats game planned to stop Westbrook more so than Owens. Owens got his 9 catches for 122 yards, but didn't score while Westbrook, who averaged 4.6 ypc in the regular season, was held to 2.9 ypc by the Pats that included a meaningless 22-yrd run to end the 1st half, which accounted for half his total rushing yards! Take away that run and Westbrook averaged to 1.6 ypc. Westbrook did, however, catch 7 passes for 60 yards and a TD. If Dexter Reid, who replaced an injured Eugene Wilson, didn't allow a 30-yrd TD pass to Greg Lewis late in the game, the score would have been 24-14. Bottom line, stop Westbrook and you stop Philly.

It all depends how these stats are applied. If some stats and/or facts fail to serve a useful purpose, they should be ignored.

 

[AllabouttheVinces]

You guys are so right! Attributing wins to 30+ rushes or 300+ yards passing are incredibly dumb. My favorite has to be Kerry Collins, who always throws for 300+ plus 2 interceptions. His name is always in the stats leaders, and their is usually one more L in the win/loss column.

Here's another one that drives me nuts. How many times have you seen a CB complimented based on a high # of tackles? Doesn't that just mean opponents throw in his direction all the time? The best CB's never have a high # of tackles.

 

[BruschiOnTap]

Yeah, I agree with that.... ColdHardFootballFacts ought to analyze this one and figure out where the optimum balanced game is and then let the analysts know so we can stop the insanity.

There was a big study last year done by ESPN that claimed YPC is less important than rushing attempts. More rushing attempts equals a win. But it's kind of a snake eating its tail because if you can't gain on the ground effectively, you're going to have to start throwing the ball. You need YPC early and often to establish the run and then late in the game, when it's clock-killin' time, attempts matter more than YPC.

so run early, run often, don't give up on it, wear out their defense. This sets up your passing game and then you should be in a spot to kill clock later on. hm, that hardly sounds like new wisdom at all...

 

[the taildragger]

"and the running game is so important to the [insert team here], that in games that they ran the ball more than 30 times they were 7-1."

This seems so idiotic to me. If you are ahead, you run the ball to kill the clock. At it's worst, this statement confuses cause and effect. At its best, it's totally meaningless.

ditto.

heard Rick Spielman the other day say something like, "when the Fins ran the ball over 100 yards last year they were undefeated"....everytime that guy opens his mouth it becomes obvious why he was fired.

gotta run, Irvin is on ESPN, should be some fresh material...

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

To me, it's more of a chicken/egg question. It can go both ways.

You posted this one day too early. The chicken/egg issue has been resolved. Egg came first.

Regards,
Chris

P.S. Google it...I'm not kidding.

 

[RayClay]

How many yards of offense.

At least a good running game takes time off the clock, rests the defense and sets up passing.

Running up and down the field without scoring is just stupid.

That would be like the Red Sox of old getting extra credit for all the men left on base.

 

[RayClay]

Second dumbest is yards allowed on defense.

Again, you can allow as many yards as you want if they don't score touchdowns.

See 2001 Pats.

 

[Snowangel]

Cheesy Stats

Let's not forget about the "How many sneakers does Brentson Buckner use in a week leading up to the game, and how many times does he change his sneakers during the game?" stat.

That was painful.

Now the big ******ed one will be ALTEC = Avg. Length of Time for Endzone Celebrations."